In Part I, I started by calling out a behavior that I believe is representative of a significant cultural shift. Of course, it would be ludicrous to base my hypothesis on something so simple as an uptick in red light runners. In that post, I attempted to begin addressing the issue of how we know something to be true and whether we ought to organize our lives around that thing or things. We ended with a brief summation of the last few centuries of western thought, in juxtaposition to the preceding history of mankind, as expressed in the conflict between belief in absolute and relative views of truth. We actually generated a healthy little discussion that promises to continue and carry over to subsequent posts. (For those who are not particularly interested in this series, don’t give up hope. It won’t last forever.) 🙂

In Part II, we looked at the foundational principles of freedom, equality and tolerance as metrics by which we judge whether something is true or not. We also briefly touched upon the Naturalism vs. Spiritualism conflict and my contention that, in the end, we need to put our trust in one or the other. They can coexist nicely to a point before they can’t. Through the course of the post, I felt I jumped around a lot before coming back to rest on the challenge of understanding what is happening in western culture and how we should respond. And, that’s where I hope to go now.

* * *

In a society with agreed upon foundational ideals, values and principles, behavior in its many forms (from artistic expression to interpersonal relationships to the way we organize ourselves into communities and institutions) will be reflective. For those of us interested in any of these things, I suggest it’s a good idea to pay attention.

As I implied before, I can live in a world where truth is seen as both relative and objective. I can respect someone who sees beauty somewhat differently than I do. I can similarly respect and appreciate how some will find ultimate meaning in something other than what I do … for instance a practicing Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist, among others. I am a BIG fan of free will and, accordingly, not a fan of oppression. I know that perspective is an expression of humaneness and offers us a window into the complexity of all that is. I also honor those who do not know what to think and hope that they will find answers to their questions … the ones that are known and the ones that remain hidden under layers.

I urge those with strong opinions to routinely test their assumptions about the way they think reality is organized (or not) by interacting with others who both share and disagree. I find it immensely disturbing that the trend is in the opposite direction and that this is a precursor of both very bad things and, just maybe, a very good thing.

The bad news (as both my brother Grant and my friend Shack suggested) is that there is a current descent into relativism whereby we lose touch with certain lodestars that govern civil behavior. The recent election is but a current expression of this but the election is only the natural effect of a cause that has gained considerable traction for awhile. That causality contributes to red light runners. 🙂

For the last four hundred years we’ve been carving away at the objective edifice. And carve, we do. In the name of freedom, equality, independence, and tolerance, we reject a position that says that these things are not ends but means … means to the recognition that there is something more foundational than they are.

And, so we are lost in the cul-de-sacs created by our own lack of capacity to discern the ultimate outcomes of our thinking.

We continue searching. For years, I wore that as a badge of pride. I was a searcher after truth. But, I never believed I’d find it. I knew there would always be a small nuance to be dissected, an argument to refute and that the label of Searcher was, in fact, the highest calling. I never considered the possibility of Finding. What a crazy scenario!!

Imagine a 15^th or 16^th century explorer who actually did not expect to find anything (this is different from not knowing what one will find … it’s all in the expectation). How absurd.

Now, imagine the 21^st century relativist who believes that nothing permanent will ever be discernible. Or, contrarily, the relativist who believes the only permanency to be discovered is Perfect Man.

For some, this will be a comfort. “I cannot know the end of the story and that’s fine. I will live my life the best I can. Of course, I need, then, to accept that others have the right to live their lives the best they can and I have no fundamental right to consider theirs inappropriate.”

I could spend hours and hours talking about Nietzsche, Kafka, Picasso, etc… About how, on the one hand, the degradation of humanity is manifest and, on the other, it is glorified. Either way, we end up repulsed.

Absurdity is treated as beautiful (Picasso was an unrepentant hedonist who worked hard to dispossess the west of its traditional values of love and beauty) while the concept of a moral code is treated as tantamount to slavery. Renaissance art is an anachronism as a thing beholden to corrupt mythology. We ooh and aah at the most ridiculous things and apportion our approval to the meaningless. What, in our artistic expression, will stand the test of time?

We spend countless hours glued to “reality” TV that is basically voyeurism because we are insecure in our own skin. We elect a reality TV guy President who builds casinos for a living (hope built upon pure fantasy and the reality of exploitation) and offer up as a messiah a one term congressman with no government experience who sells us hope and change and delivers on neither, instead practicing the religion of self-aggrandizement. (I’ll be happy to engage that debate.)

The greatest abusers of human rights are accorded seats on the UN Human Rights Council. Currently, Cuba and Venezuela are members. Really??

Hollywood is ascendant in all of its bling and vapid fantasy. People with no moral authority or deep understanding are attributed great wisdom and are courted for their approval. Hypocrites Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore spout the existential danger of global warming and climate change while cavorting around in private jets or on yachts with incredibly large carbon footprints while taking petro dollars in support (Gore). People who are immersed in a culture of drugs, violence and sexual exploitation are seen as role models. Musicians who scream out the most hateful racist and misogynistic invective are worshipped by people who claim they hate racism and sexism.

And, on the other side, religious leaders spout out platitudes that are anything but loving and forgiving, denying the principles that their God claimed as inviolate. The religious press constantly has to report the failings of this or that pastor or priest, exposed for the most blatant hypocrisies.

We say that our side is for peace and hope and the other side is doing everything possible to obstruct peace and hope.

Where are the measured voices calling out their own as opposed to fingering the opposition for their tremendous failures?

We read about small wars and the potential for bigger ones. We drown in threats from nuclear proliferation to climate catastrophe to deeply ingrained racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christianphobia, poverty, superbugs and bio-terrorism, the rise of nationalism and the rise of globalism. Voices claiming that their position is the correct one and, inversely, the position of others is incorrect.

It’s no wonder people are running red lights.

On the other hand, we hold out hope that these warning lights are just inconveniences, nothing to be alarmed about. We’re fine and our civilization is on the right trajectory. And, there is certainly some truth in that, given the appropriate metrics.

For instance, worldwide poverty rates are substantially dipping, in no small part to the widespread availability of relatively cheap energy and very large supplies of food (both of which were predicted to largely disappear decades ago). Of course, there is a lot of debate about the place for fossil fuels and on climate issues, especially how governments can regulate anthropogenic impacts on nature. And, despotism still reigns in much of the world, making the distribution of food and other critical goods a challenge, to say the least. We are continually finding new ways to fight disease, thereby positively affecting life spans and the overall quality of life. In other words, in a strictly material sense, the trajectory appears very positive, with no end in sight as technologies bring far-flung communities and societies into instant contact, helping them to problem solve and complement one another’s strengths. I’m not even scratching the surface of possibilities here for improving the condition for many or even most of the world’s population. Through this lens, the future is bright and a cause for hope.

The optimists will basically just stop there. After all, it’s a nice narrative with a neat ending, as if we are in perpetual sunrise. There is great allure here. Maybe it’s like we’re always on Christmas Eve, anticipating the opening of presents in the morning, or else we’re always in Christmas morning, excitedly opening one present, the completion of which gives us the opportunity to open another present. Life is full of promise.

Until it’s not.

In what are we putting our hope? More material prosperity? Less physical discomfort? The opportunity to know more about more things (much of the knowledge of which has absolutely no impact on our quality of life)?

I have read of study after study that shows there is no positive correlation between material prosperity and happiness. In fact, there is often the inverse: Material wealth breeds higher levels of loneliness, more anxiety and more suicides. And, don’t get me started again on happiness.

I believe what is happening here is the confluence of relativistic thought with a propensity towards materialism as the guiding force of modern and post-modern western culture. It is no coincidence that the relativism given great life in the Enlightenment lived side by side with Karl Marx’s fundamental tenet, termed Dialectical Materialism (the belief in which guided a significant portion of our world’s population in the last century and is still a magnet for the far left).

I use the word, “lodestar” a lot because it’s helpful to clearly identify the thing or things that act as stationary guides pulling us towards a far off point. As I’ve either implied or just plain out stated: We all have them, even the relativists. We all search for that which gives us meaning, be it material prosperity, happiness, a perfectly egalitarian world, a world at peace wherein violence and its causes have disappeared, a world of freedom wherein humans can fulfill their desires without coming into conflict with others’ pursuit of their own desires, a world where reason reigns supreme wherein knowledge and wisdom are perceived as basically synonymous … and the list goes on.

The lodestar for dialectical materialism is a vision of utopian life where material needs are fulfilled by a neat economic theory regarding the means of production and people’s inherent goodness to do their part and where their “spiritual” needs are fulfilled by the achievement of perfect equality where no one owns anything and everyone owns everything. In other words, harmony and the perfectibility of man once the chains are removed (which, ahem, requires a whole lot of oppression in the meantime). In this vision, there is no external truth except for the truth of economics (where does that come from?) as expressed through historical relationships and where morality is completely man-made and man-enforced. And, of course, this is all made possible by the famous maxim: The Ends Justify the Means.

And, that’s a mouthful. Is there a more perfect way of articulating the relativist position?

The end of cutting two minutes off of my commute because I neither had the discipline to organize my time appropriately nor the respect for agreed upon conformities in the name of community safety, justifies the means enacted in my refutation of the law. Of course there may be something of “you mean me? I think red lights are good things.” That’s called hypocrisy which is the inverse of integrity.

We’re all guilty of this. All of us seek to cut corners in order to get around the constraints laid down by guiding principles. A little white lie at one extreme and fire bombing Dresden on the other. This is the problem for relativists. Where do we draw the line and what do we make of it when we cross it?

But, then, in order to cut corners we must be grounded in something greater than our own wish fulfillment. You can’t justify the means if there’s nothing by which we can determine the justification.

I said earlier that when we take relativism and objectivism to their logical ends … which I argue we must do to give us proper perspective on what the thing actually is all about … we should be afraid.

The objectivist must confront the fact that there is a truth so transcendentally powerful and meaningful that it overwhelms our ability to be independent. Think about it. This is why monotheists who even see God as perfectly loving, can experience fear and trembling at the enormity of it all. Given the premise of objective evil and objective good, then there has to be a standard of justice, or else good and evil are irrelevant in the end which negates their objective status. And judgment (justice implemented), which we all crave in this life for others and for our world, can be a scary thing when applied to one’s self.

The relativist must confront the fact that there is no meaning beyond what we create via our own feelings and thoughts, always at the whim of transient things. And, the end of this road is very scary. Where all things are equivalent, there can be no judgment or a concept of justice. The concepts of good and evil evaporate. This end place is called Nihilism, the rejection of all religious or moral principles, even to the point of the belief that life is truly meaningless.

Let Victor Frankl help us draw a conclusion. As a Jewish doctor, he survived the horrors of Auschwitz and chronicled his experiences, concluding that it’s important to find meaning in existence, even in the worst circumstances. And, thereby, give us a reason to live. He writes:

If we present a man with a ‘concept of man’ which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced (my emphasis) that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.“

Be afraid.

So, we can put our trust in material gains, which is just a form of putting our trust in ourselves. We can trust that man is inherently good and needs to just throw off the chains of oppressive structures in order to reach our full idealized potential … the throwing off of which will require oppressive structures because mankind is conditioned not to be good until we become good. We can put our trust in pure naturalism, whereby we are just particles engaged in some form of progress, no different than any other groupings of elemental substances, animate or inanimate. We can put our trust in ideals such as freedom, equality or tolerance, elevating them to the status of idols in that they are ends in themselves, deserving of worship however we choose to do so.

Or, we can put our trust in something that is independent of man, although somehow linked.

And, trust we do and trust we must. Pick your lodestar, knowing there will be consequences.

If it’s Happiness, know that it will always disappoint and never persist. If it’s Equality, know that there is no evidence to suggest mankind is at all predisposed to the concept when push comes to shove. In fact, we viscerally react against it at some point (absent some quality that is transcendent). If it’s Freedom, we must realize that laws and norms always exist as a limiting factor that keep us from the horror of anarchy. If it’s Tolerance, be aware that allowing others the right to exercise their beliefs does not mean we have the right to not tolerate their expression. If it’s Gaia or the harmonies in nature, realize that the laws of animate nature are basically the strong and cunning tend to survive better while not having the load of carrying a conscience. Nature can be a very stark and unforgiving place as well as beautiful and inviting.

As we begin to wind down, those of you who know me personally or through these writings know that I’ve searched for meaning and truth since I was in my teens. I’ve read the histories of most civilizations and I’ve trained in historiography (the study of how to study history). I’ve studied economics, political science, sociology, classical philosophy, economic philosophy, epistemology, psychology, theology, and biology. Beyond those studies, I’ve read physics, astronomy, cosmology, a little bio-chemistry, a little medicine and probably a number of other disciplines that don’t immediately come to mind. And beyond all of that, I’ve investigated all of the major religions and have actually practiced a number of them, believing at least a significant portion of their doctrines. I’ve tried to do all of this with an open mind and willingness to test my own assumptions. I have lived a portion of my life with the practical belief that truth cannot fully be known and that the relativistic approach offered the best match to my Idol: The Search is an end in itself.

(I hope you will not take this as an expression of arrogance in the vein of “look at me and all I’ve learned and done.” Instead, I’m humbled by my relative incapacity to understand many things, realizing there’s always more just around the corner. I included this background to illustrate how challenging the road has been for me and the level of effort it’s taken to arrive where I am today. The irony is that the house of cards collapsed under its own weight.)

Somehow, through all of this, I was more afraid of nihilism and anarchy than I was in an omnipotent being. Somehow, I remained convinced there was a moral code that existed externally to man, that there is such a thing as evil and that evil can become personified. I remained convinced that there is justice, although I did not know (and still do not know wholly) what that means. Somehow, I continued to have experiences that could not be explained through any of the disciplines I’d studied, including psychology.

I do not need to rehash what happened, what changed, when in fact everything changed. I came to the knowledge that there was Objective Truth and that tendencies to relativism were both natural to our existence and potentially dangerous. And, this knowledge has only been confirmed and increased in its depth as I’ve continued to explore and welcome honest conversations that could test my assumptions and beliefs.

They say that God cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You can’t prove what you cannot see. Perhaps. But you can’t disprove his existence. We can come close to a foundational belief in the competing objective truths of Monotheism and Atheism through applied reason but we have to resort to something beyond reason to rest assured. But, just before that point, we have to ask the question, is there any other system of thought that better explains reality than the one I’m investing in?

The relativist can be either whole or half hearted, just as the objectivist can. We are now in an age where relativism has the upper hand in the west, although there is certainly evidence of a trend in the other direction.

You may think this is a stretch but I want to connect red light runners with the phenomenon of our current political climate. Tens of millions of people dismiss character and truth-saying with the hope that their dismissal will be justified in the end. We’ve nominated liars and cheats for the main political parties while the fringes spout absurdities and attract large numbers. We drown in information, making it difficult to judge veracity, while also rejecting informed dialogue, resting in the comfort of our predilections. Our arrogance seems to know no bounds. We celebrate the vapid as worthy and reject a moral code as oppressive. We teach all sorts of things in our schools but how much time do we spend on loving our neighbor as ourselves? Wouldn’t that be something?

We cannot have it both ways. While we can live within the tension of a world punctuated by both versions of truth and we can even organize our lives trying to balance the principles, we can’t ultimately connect them in the end. The relativist red light runner must honestly say either, “I don’t believe in the rule,” or “My needs are greater than the rule.” I suspect almost all of them/us will choose the latter. When merely applied to running red lights, the consequences will largely be annoying, while sometimes tragic. When applied to the greater forces at work in the world and in our personal lives, the consequences can be much further reaching.

And, the objectivist carries an equivalent burden. When we spout platitudes or point legalistic fingers at others as we seek to raise the thing we worship to the top of the heap, we run the risk of making a really big mistake. The objectivists who resort to oppression in order to enforce their ideal (Idol) on others only invites scrutiny into how they live out their truths which is a hard thing to do if you’re human. Historically, many religious leaders (but by no means all or even most if we look closely enough) only alienate those who seek guidance, thereby filling the ranks of those who embrace relativism.

In the end, I’m a very cautious and humble objectivist who hopefully has eyes wide open to my many failures and inadequacies. I reject a view of reality that says there is no Objective Truth beyond what humans construct or what can be discerned through examining nature and the physical/material world. I reject it out of hand. For me, it not only doesn’t make sense, its implications for organizing human life are left somewhere between sadly wanting and disastrous.

I remember embracing, in my 20s the compelling variation on the Christian faith called Liberation Theology. It appealed to my extremely strong allegiance to notions of social justice, much of which I certainly retain. However, it only partially explained the full Gospel, the richness of which is both simple and exceedingly complex. I have spent the last decade diving deeply into its core, untangling the intricacies and rejoicing in the clarity. As I wrote a week or so ago, it turns everything upside down. No one could make it up. It can’t possibly be the explanation for all of reality because it’s crazy. Viewed through common lenses, it must be crazy. In fact, though, it’s anything but. I’ve never found something so authentic and complete. So totally encompassing as it weaves together all of the themes we’ve been looking at: Freedom. Equality. Tolerance. The Material World. Happiness. Each of them accorded primary status in the eyes of some, they are repositioned as expressions of something else and as signposts pointing to something greater. And, I haven’t found one shred of evidence to say that it is false or inappropriate.

We all place our trust in something or things. We all organize our lives and our decisions around guiding principles, each of which must be grounded in a centralizing truth. We need to ask ourselves what that truth is and what it means for us.

As we end, I feel the need to apologize. Typically, I write what comes to my mind, without taking time to really deliberate. After all, I am not writing a book. This theme has proved my most difficult and, while connected to other themes, as a standalone I know I have probably made statements that are not exact enough or do not flow appropriately. I have given pretty short shrift to topics that deserve a much more deliberate and careful examination. I have largely kept to my practice of just allowing my thinking to flow, typing as fast as that happens. I suspect there may be more holes than exist in a large slice of Swiss cheese. Oh well! 🙂

Lord, this is hard stuff. We want every question answered, every doubt allayed. Many of us are, with good cause, repulsed by the concept that you exist. Many take comfort in a world where it’s easy to refute any belief that good and bad, good and evil, right and wrong, judgment and justice, exist outside of the human dimension. Help those of us who place our trust in you to live peacefully side by side with these and those of all beliefs and to be slow to judge and quick to love. Help us to forgive as we seek forgiveness. Help us to resist the temptation to give into the voice that says these other idols and some not mentioned are superior and more authentic than you. Having said these things, we rejoice in the fact that you are who you claim. And, what rejoicing that is. Amen.